The dispute is not over whether Rome had authority or if Rome was the first see. This was all in canon law. The dispute is over whether the position of Rome as the first Church was an immutable thing. We would hold, in general, that If primacy is a power wielded by all bishops and by the Church as a whole, then the first millennium primacy of Rome was not immutable, but could be changed.I have never heard the word “primacy” used so often in one paragraph, but strangely, it made absolute sense! I see your point and it is well noted. I am still just a little uncertain though about how to reconcile the Early Church’s view of the primacy of Rome with the Orthodox view I am really just learning about. It seems that the early bishops did hold Rome, at least many did, as having a great deal of authority. I know this isn’t exactly what Orthodox teach, but that is how it appears to me from the letters I have read from various Saints.
Still, I can certainly see your argument in clear terms. I am just uncertain of your conclusions.
Wouldn’t this apply to Constantinople as well? I’m just thinking, maybe Constantinople’s time has passed as “New Rome”, given that it is located in a Muslim country with hardly any Christian faithful.The dispute is not over whether Rome had authority or if Rome was the first see. This was all in canon law. The dispute is over whether the position of Rome as the first Church was an immutable thing. We would hold, in general, that If primacy is a power wielded by all bishops and by the Church as a whole, then the first millennium primacy of Rome was not immutable, but could be changed.
I’ve heard a Greek priest say much the same thing.Wouldn’t this apply to Constantinople as well? I’m just thinking, maybe Constantinople’s time has passed as “New Rome”, given that it is located in a Muslim country with hardly any Christian faithful.
Indeed so, for this underlined statement has been proven to be all too accurate! Still recall the time expended at Christ of the Hills with certain monastics vigorously asserting such related (but not identical) concepts as papal primacy, papal supremacy, and papal infallibility were essentially legalistic deviations from the true faith of Orthodoxy. This would appear to sum it up rather nicely: “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing” (Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen’s Preface to Leslie A. Rumble & Charles M. Carty’s Radio Replies, Volume 1).When I was not yet in the Catholic communion, I thought when Catholics said “infallibility,” it referred to some sort of magic power that AUTOMATICALLY makes everything the Catholic Church teaches to be without error. That’s what I heard from all my Orthodox teachers, so that’s what I believed. It was only after I started reading what the Catholic Church herself was teaching that my (mis)understanding was corrected.
I do believe that what the Catholic Church teaches about infallibility in general is believed by the Orthodox Churches. It is just that the OC’s don’t conceive of it under that name. I think Orthodox would express it as “the unique guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to the Apostles and their successors in order to correctly teach the Faith.”
I think the term “infallibility” is too bound up in non-Catholic misunderstandings of the papacy for the word itself to be immediately acceptable to the Orthodox Churches generally.
Blessings,
Marduk
Or to the ordering of the patriarchs in the diptychs. There is virtually no chance for such things to change, however, since the ordering of the pentarchy is built into the canons, and changing this would be a monumental task. That being said, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in a bad situation, for sure. A change of venue (like moving to one of its territories within the borders of Greece) would probably work out well (much like the Patriarch of Antioch moving to Damascus), but I think the loss of the Phanar and its history is perhaps too high a cost to make this option feasible as anything but a last resort (in response to Turkish obstructionism, oppression, persecution, etc.).Wouldn’t this apply to Constantinople as well? I’m just thinking, maybe Constantinople’s time has passed as “New Rome”, given that it is located in a Muslim country with hardly any Christian faithful.
Can’t they just keep the Phanar with a bishop there but the actual Ecumenical Patriarch be somewhere else? As I understand it, the biggest issue is that the Turkish government won’t allow a non-Turkish citizen to take the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch.Or to the ordering of the patriarchs in the diptychs. There is virtually no chance for such things to change, however, since the ordering of the pentarchy is built into the canons, and changing this would be a monumental task. That being said, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in a bad situation, for sure. A change of venue (like moving to one of its territories within the borders of Greece) would probably work out well (much like the Patriarch of Antioch moving to Damascus), but I think the loss of the Phanar and its history is perhaps too high a cost to make this option feasible as anything but a last resort (in response to Turkish obstructionism, oppression, persecution, etc.).
That is part of the problem, yes, and I doubt that the Turkish government would just let the Ecumenical Patriarch (it is illegal to call the Ecumenical Patriarch by this title in Turkey, by the way) leave the Phanar and set some other bishop there to watch the property.Can’t they just keep the Phanar with a bishop there but the actual Ecumenical Patriarch be somewhere else? As I understand it, the biggest issue is that the Turkish government won’t allow a non-Turkish citizen to take the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Why would they care anyway?That is part of the problem, yes, and I doubt that the Turkish government would just let the Ecumenical Patriarch (it is illegal to call the Ecumenical Patriarch by this title in Turkey, by the way) leave the Phanar and set some other bishop there to watch the property.
The situation is complicated. Historically, secular Turkey (that is, Atatürk’s Turkey) has not treated the Ecumenical Patriarchate well. In the past nine decades they have confiscated numerous Church properties, and worst of all, shut down the Halki Seminary, making the election of future Ecumenical Patriarchs impossible by Turkish law (because the law states that candidates must be graduates of the Halki Seminary). In addition to this, Turkey is caught in between a bunch of different forces. There are the conservative secularists in the military, who claim to be faithful to faithful to the principles of Atatürk (so-called “Kemalism”. Then there is the growing influence of the Islamists, who currently have one of their own, Abdullah Gül, in the office of the presidency (Abdullah Gül is in fact the first openly devout Muslim president of Turkey). In light of this tension, it seems, perhaps a bit too convenient that the people implicated in the 2008 plot to assassinate the Ecumenical Patriarch were mainly military and police forces, who are typically avowed secularists, but then the secularists are the ones who hold the most animosity towards the Ecumenical Patriarch (as they do towards all religious figures), so I suppose the Turkish government’s story is not entirely unbelievable.Why would they care anyway?
Come now Constantine, you know this. When American Christians claim to be persecuted because they can’t have a nativity scene on the lawn of the town hall this is the kind of thing Easterners think of.Why would they care anyway?
Offhand, seems Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus would tentatively meet the criteria set forth in Pastor aeternus?Yet from St. Peter to Vatican I, not one Pope has declared anything ex cathedra
Curious as to where the Catholic Church explicitly teaches popes can unilaterally “proclaim anything by themselves infallibly” in such a manner?Most Popes with dubious lives lived at a time they did not know they can proclaim anything by themselves infallibly.
Appears to be evidence of presentism here? Why would any purported past exercises of papal infallibility necessarily be restricted to the future understanding fully elaborated in Pastor aeternus?The best example of the non-existence of Papal Infallibility in the First Millennium is not by a heretic but by a very orthodox Pope, Pope St. Martin I. He was professing the orthodox faith rightfully and was persecuted against by the Emperor and the “Eastern” Patriarchs who were siding with heresy. He was persecuted with St. Maximos the Confessor.
If he knew he had infallibility, he would have just declared Monothelitism to be a heresy and ended the issue right there and then. But he was deposed and died in exile, and only later to be venerated as a defender of orthodoxy.
Seems to be a classic example of Monday-morning quarterbacking? Besides, how would any solemn ex cathedra pronouncement have resulted in a different outcome?Thanks! Pope St. Martin I had all the ingredients right there in front of him. First, he called for an Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649 (which didn’t turn out Ecumenical because of the lack of support and acceptance by the Eastern bishops). Second, he taught the orthodox faith, proponents of Papal Infallibility say that the Holy Spirit will not allow a heretic Pope to declare any heresy Ex Cathedra and we know that Pope St. Martin I was thoroughly orthodox in faith. And finally, this was a huge issue. The Eastern Patriarchs were teaching heresy and thus there is a pressing need for a dogmatic declaration of the true faith to correct the errors of those bishops who support Monothelitism. This wasn’t a “he had no reason to speak ex cathedra” moment, he had every reason to impose the true doctrine of the faith over many who taught in error.
Gather any conclusions would depend upon what exactly the correct Catholic definition and historical application of universal ordinary jurisdiction vis-à-vis papal supremacy would entail? For instance, seems Mardukm’s posts have consistenly highlighted many of the misunderstandings in this area might well rest upon straw men arguments?No level headed Orthodox will deny the primacy of Peter or even the Pope of Rome. But the biggest contention is, does Primacy equate to universal ordinary jurisdiction? Does primacy equate to infallibility in of himself and apart from the Church? The problem in this debate is that any Catholic immidately interprets anything that could be interpreted as denoting primacy to mean Papal Supremacy. It is like interpreting Exodus and saying that God gave Moses two iPads. We’re looking at a past event in today’s context, rather than look at it in their own context.
It is a stretch to say Matthew 23:2 is about the Papacy. For one thing, no other Apostle, not even Peter, taught that. If it is that integral to the faith, why is it not mentioned at all in Scripture explicitly? If this was the intended hierarchy of the Church, why was everyone so silent? Why are there no references in St. John’s Revelations to the Papacy which was written way after the martyrdom of Peter?
Plus, Matthew 19:28 says that the 12 Apostles will sit on the 12 judgment seats judging the 12 tribes of Israel. There is no primary seat for one Apostle above the other 11.
Seems the historical facts do strongly indicate Pope John XXII was merely speaking in his personal capacity as a private theologian as he never promulgated any pronouncement binding upon all the faithful? At the concluding speech following the consistory from 28 December 1333 - 3 January 1334, the pontiff declared he was willing to abandon his statements on the nature of the Beatific Vision if it were conclusively proven they were contrary to the common doctrine of the Church. Shortly before his death, he signed the papal bull Ne super his whereby he officially retracted his former opinions.The hardest pope to reconsile with papal infalibilty in my opinion is Pope John XXII - he promulgated interesting notions on the Beatific Vision. Out Catholic friends say that he was speaking personally and not as the Pope.
Not sure how the example of Pope Honorius I necessarily compromises papal infallibility? From the Catholic understanding, a pope is only guarded from error in what he positively teaches instead of instances where he is woefully remiss in his duty to prudently speak out on a doctrinal crisis in a productive manner? If memory serves, Pope Hadrian II noted in a letter read during the seventh session at the Fourth Council of Constantinople that this exceptional condemnation of a pontiff by an ecumencial council was ultimately effective only because the Apostolic See itself had subsequently consented to it (during the pontificate of Leo II).Really? I would say it was Pope Honorius, who was condemned as a heretic at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematized by the council, and his letters subsequently burned.
“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!” - 17th Session of the 3rd Council of Constantinople.
Interesting post here from an older conversation about His Holiness.
But wasn’t it retroactively declared ex cathedra? There is nothing in the document that says clearly that it is infallibly declared. Unless we are to assume that all Papal Bulls are ex cathedra, but that is opening a whole new can of worms for the Papacy.Offhand, seems Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus would tentatively meet the criteria set forth in Pastor aeternus?
Pastor Aeternus clearly states that ex cathedra statemens are irreformable by the authority of the Pope by himself without consent of the Church.Curious as to where the Catholic Church explicitly teaches popes can unilaterally “proclaim anything by themselves infallibly” in such a manner?
As opposed to anachronism, by stating that the Pope today is infallible therefore we just assume that it was always there and falsely assume that everything as it is today is the same exact way the last 2000 years?Appears to be evidence of presentism here? Why would any purported past exercises of papal infallibility necessarily be restricted to the future understanding fully elaborated in Pastor aeternus?
First of all, it would have proven the Pope’s supremacy over the other Churches in the middle of the First Millennium. Even if the heretic Bishops denied the Pope and imprisoned him and St. Maximos anyway, this would have been brought as part of the list of charges against them by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. As it is, they were anathemized for teaching heresy, but not for denying Papal Authority. Whether it would have changed anything or not is highly debatable, but the fact that it never happened regardless of the outcome proves that such authority never existed. I mean, does Pope St. Martin I knew his fate? Did he say to himself, “I can declare this ex cathedra but I’m going to prison anyway to die there.” Of course not! And he wouldn’t declare it ex cathedra to save his own skin. First, heresy was rampant in the Church and virtually the entire East needed correction. Second, he wasn’t the only person persecuted. If not him, he could have easily saved countless other people from pain and persecution. Third, even if they do proceed to kill him, he at least would have cemented the true faith of the Church and urge others to continue the fight. Don’t forget that the previous Pope also was fighting the heresy, but he died before the council was convened. By declaring something ex cathedra if he had that authority then, Pope St. Martin at least would have ensured the teaching would be solid and preseved even after his own death. St. Maximos was worried after the death of the previous Pope that the next Pope could be a heretic. So there are a ton of great reasons why an ex cathedra declaration would have been helpful in this situation.Seems to be a classic example of Monday-morning quarterbacking? Besides, how would any solemn ex cathedra pronouncement have resulted in a different outcome?
Why don’t you ask mardukm to prove his points. Or is this just, 'I agree with him therefore whatever he said is true"?Gather any conclusions would depend upon what exactly the correct Catholic definition and historical application of universal ordinary jurisdiction vis-à-vis papal supremacy would entail? For instance, seems Mardukm’s posts have consistenly highlighted many of the misunderstandings in this area might well rest upon straw men arguments?
Seems the Catholic understanding is that although papal infallibility was not a solemnly defined ex cathedra pronouncement as a dogma de fide credenda (“of the faith to be believed”) [as a divinely revealed truth] exercised through the Extraordinary Magisterium, it was prievously understood as an implicit doctrine de fide tenenda (“of the faith to be held”) [as a definitively proposed truth] exercised through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium before its solemn definition on 18 July 1870?SanctusPeccator;10100694:
would tentatively meet the criteria set forth in Pastor aeternus?Offhand, seems Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus
But wasn’t it retroactively declared ex cathedra? There is nothing in the document that says clearly that it is infallibly declared. Unless we are to assume that all Papal Bulls are ex cathedra, but that is opening a whole new can of worms for the Papacy.
Since Vatican I was prematurely prorogued with the seizure of Rome by General Raffaele Cadorna on 20 September 1870, it was unable to correctly situate the exercise of papal primacy vis-à-vis the ecclesiological context of episcopal collegiality (this exagerrated emphasis on papal infallibility would sadly result in an unbalanced ecclesiology that would not be addressed until Vatican II).SanctusPeccator;10100694:
" in such a manner?Curious as to where the Catholic Church explicitly teaches popes can unilaterally "proclaim anything by themselves infallibly
Pastor Aeternus clearly states that ex cathedra statemens are irreformable by the authority of the Pope by himself without consent of the Church.
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Why would one expect the historical development and practical application of papal infallibility to be revealed explicitly and instantaneously?SanctusPeccator;10100694:
exercises of papal infallibility necessarily be restricted to the future understanding fully elaborated in Pastor aeternus?Appears to be evidence of presentism here? Why would any purported past
As opposed to anachronism, by stating that the Pope today is infallible therefore we just assume that it was always there and falsely assume that everything as it is today is the same exact way the last 2000 years?
If it was never done in the early Church, what credibility does it have for doing today? How else can we have any proof that this is indeed the true teaching of the Apostles? Just beecause the Pope says so? Then how is he any better than the cult leaders who interpret the Bible their way and claim authority to themselves? As St.Paul teaches, we should hold fast to the traditions we are given. If we do something that is not in accordance to tradition, then what proof is there that this is what the Apostles taught?
Again, this seems to overlook the seventh-century (incipient at best) understanding of papal primacy could hardly be expected to conform to what would be subsequently elaborated in the nineteenth-century? Further, there is no crucial distinction in how papal authority would accordingly be exercised differently as either Metropolitan of Italy, Patriarch of the West, or Pontifex Maximus of Christendom.SanctusPeccator;10100694:
pronouncement have resulted in a different outcome?Seems to be a classic example of Monday-morning quarterbacking? Besides, how would any solemn ex cathedra
First of all, it would have proven the Pope’s supremacy over the other Churches in the middle of the First Millennium. Even if the heretic Bishops denied the Pope and imprisoned him and St. Maximos anyway, this would have been brought as part of the list of charges against them by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. As it is, they were anathemized for teaching heresy, but not for denying Papal Authority. Whether it would have changed anything or not is highly debatable, but the fact that it never happened regardless of the outcome proves that such authority never existed. I mean, does Pope St. Martin I knew his fate? Did he say to himself, “I can declare this ex cathedra but I’m going to prison anyway to die there.” Of course not! And he wouldn’t declare it ex cathedra to save his own skin. First, heresy was rampant in the Church and virtually the entire East needed correction. Second, he wasn’t the only person persecuted. If not him, he could have easily saved countless other people from pain and persecution. Third, even if they do proceed to kill him, he at least would have cemented the true faith of the Church and urge others to continue the fight. Don’t forget that the previous Pope also was fighting the heresy, but he died before the council was convened. By declaring something ex cathedra if he had that authority then, Pope St. Martin at least would have ensured the teaching would be solid and preseved even after his own death. St. Maximos was worried after the death of the previous Pope that the next Pope could be a heretic. So there are a ton of great reasons why an ex cathedra declaration would have been helpful in this situation.
Not sure how mentioning [the detailed thoroughness of] Mardukm’s posts would automatically signify full agreement?SanctusPeccator;10100694:
Catholic definition and historical application of universal ordinary jurisdiction vis-à-vis papal supremacy would entail? For instance, seems Mardukm’s posts have consistenly highlighted many of the misunderstandings in this area might well rest upon straw men arguments?Gather any conclusions would depend upon what exactly the correct
Why don’t you ask mardukm to prove his points. Or is this just, 'I agree with him therefore whatever he said is true"?
What ensures your understanding of “universal ordinary jurisdiction” is actually that of the Catholic Church?Ordinary has a specirfic concept in the Catholic Church with regards to episcopal authority. For a Pope to have Ordinary jurisdiction everywhere means that he has the same authority as your local bishop (called the Local Ordinary) in the same diocese. Whether he exercises it or not is a different thing. If we’re saying that he doesn’t have it because he’s never used it, it is akin to saying that today only the US has nuclear weapons. I’ve never seen Russia use it, they don’t have it. I’ve never seen China use it, they don’t have it. Is that correct reasoning?
The most interesting question I’ve seen in this thread by far. Unfortunately, it cuts in all directions.What ensures your understanding of “universal ordinary jurisdiction” is actually that of the Catholic Church?
The difference is that light has always travelled at that speed even though we didn’t know what the exact speed was. The Pope was never infallible before Vatican I, he never exercised his infallibility even in cases when it was extremely necessary, like the example I just pointed out.Seems the Catholic understanding is that although papal infallibility was not a solemnly defined ex cathedra pronouncement as a dogma de fide credenda (“of the faith to be believed”) [as a divinely revealed truth] exercised through the Extraordinary Magisterium, it was prievously understood as an implicit doctrine de fide tenenda (“of the faith to be held”) [as a definitively proposed truth] exercised through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium before its solemn definition on 18 July 1870?
As such, this historical development would be theologically equivalent to the Seventeenth General Conference on Weights and Measures “dogmatically defining” the speed of light as 299,792,458 metres per second on 21 October 1983 although it was implicitly recognized as a fundamental physical constant antecedently).
The text is already clear that the Pope is set apart from the Church. I don’t know how any futher clarification will change that matter.Since Vatican I was prematurely prorogued with the seizure of Rome by General Raffaele Cadorna on 20 September 1870, it was unable to correctly situate the exercise of papal primacy vis-à-vis the ecclesiological context of episcopal collegiality (this exagerrated emphasis on papal infallibility would sadly result in an unbalanced ecclesiology that would not be addressed until Vatican II).
Yet nowhere here is it said that the anyone else can object to the Pope or oppose him. Close communication and collaboration does not denote that the other bishops actually has a say if the Pope wants to do something contrary to what they all believe in. Telling others what to do is communication. Asking others what they think without necessarily doing what they say is collaboration. This doesn’t change the fact that the Pope can act unilaterally and is unopposable as per Pastor Aeternus.As Lumen gentium, no. 22 clearly elaborates, it is within the overall context of the episcopal college that one must properly understand the special charism of the Roman pontiff. As the active head of the college, he is distinct (but never isolated or separated) from it while teaching and/or defining not his own personal faith, but that of the Church as the People of God. Thus, the pope must always remain in close communication and collaboration with his brother bishops dispersed throughout the world, who with him collectively guard and witness to the deposit of faith.
Because that is what Apostolic Tradition means. If the extent of our faith is something the Apostles and the Church Fathers do not know about, why do we know better than them? And if we can evolve every item in the deposit of faith into whatever and justify it by saying “we are better learned today,” then what difference are to any Protestant group today who claims that their interpretation is better than our interpretation? Just because of the title “Pope”? If we don’t have a continuity of faith from the Apostles, when we have no connection to their faith. St. Paul himself teaches to hold fast to the traditions THEY handed down to us. In short, we don’t get to make stuff up.Why would one expect the historical development and practical application of papal infallibility to be revealed explicitly and instantaneously?
These remarks, especially the last paragraph, are excellent.The difference is that light has always travelled at that speed even though we didn’t know what the exact speed was. The Pope was never infallible before Vatican I, he never exercised his infallibility even in cases when it was extremely necessary, like the example I just pointed out.
Sorry, your analogy fails, it is apples and oranges.
The text is already clear that the Pope is set apart from the Church. I don’t know how any futher clarification will change that matter.
Yet nowhere here is it said that the anyone else can object to the Pope or oppose him. Close communication and collaboration does not denote that the other bishops actually has a say if the Pope wants to do something contrary to what they all believe in. Telling others what to do is communication. Asking others what they think without necessarily doing what they say is collaboration. This doesn’t change the fact that the Pope can act unilaterally and is unopposable as per Pastor Aeternus.
Because that is what Apostolic Tradition means. If the extent of our faith is something the Apostles and the Church Fathers do not know about, why do we know better than them? And if we can evolve every item in the deposit of faith into whatever and justify it by saying “we are better learned today,” then what difference are to any Protestant group today who claims that their interpretation is better than our interpretation? Just because of the title “Pope”? If we don’t have a continuity of faith from the Apostles, when we have no connection to their faith. St. Paul himself teaches to hold fast to the traditions THEY handed down to us. In short, we don’t get to make stuff up.
Seems your response has oddly disregarded the aforementioned nuanced distinction in the historical development of this Catholic dogma? As any purported exercise of papal infallibility would necessarily reflect the ecclesial consciousness of its time, it would be fallacious to apply a nineteenth-century understanding to past events in ecclesiastical history. It would be equivalent to mistakenly stating that since Leontius of Byzantium’s concept of enhypostasis was not explicitly mentioned in Cyril of Alexandria’s Christological works, it must therefore be a false innovation.SanctusPeccator;10103955:
pronouncement as a dogma de fide credenda (“of the faith to be believed”) [as a divinely revealed truth] exercised through the Extraordinary Magisterium, it was prievously understood as an implicit doctrine de fide tenenda (“of the faith to be held”) [as a definitively proposed truth] exercised through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium before its solemn definition on 18 July 1870?Seems the Catholic understanding is that although papal infallibility was not a solemnly defined ex cathedra
As such, this historical development would be theologically equivalent to the Seventeenth General Conference on Weights and Measures “dogmatically defining” the speed of light as 299,792,458 metres per second on 21 October 1983 although it was implicitly recognized as a fundamental physical constant antecedently).
The difference is that light has always travelled at that speed even though we didn’t know what the exact speed was. The Pope was never infallible before Vatican I, he never exercised his infallibility even in cases when it was extremely necessary, like the example I just pointed out.
Sorry, your analogy fails, it is apples and oranges.
How exactly is it clear? Appears that would be the case only if this particular statement [from *Pastor aeternus] is intentionally isolated from the overall context of Catholic ecclesiology? Where does it specifically state the Roman pontiff is separate from his brother bishops in the episcopal college?SanctusPeccator;10103955:
The text is already clear that the Pope is set apart from the Church. I don’t know how any futher clarification will change that matter.Since Vatican I was prematurely prorogued with the seizure of Rome by General Raffaele Cadorna on 20 September 1870, it was unable to correctly situate the exercise of papal primacy vis-à-vis the ecclesiological context of episcopal collegiality (this exagerrated emphasis on papal infallibility would sadly result in an unbalanced ecclesiology that would not be addressed until Vatican II).
In what specific context would this be applicable? Further, where does it categorically state the exercise of papal power is arbitrary and unlimited (as your posts seem to infer)?SanctusPeccator;10103955:
, no. 22 clearly elaborates, it is within the overall context of the episcopal college that one must properly understand the special charism of the Roman pontiff. As the active head of the college, he is distinct (but never isolated or separated) from it while teaching and/or defining not his own personal faith, but that of the Church as the People of God. Thus, the pope must always remain in close communication and collaboration with his brother bishops dispersed throughout the world, who with him collectively guard and witness to the deposit of faith.As Lumen gentium
Yet nowhere here is it said that the anyone else can object to the Pope or oppose him. Close communication and collaboration does not denote that the other bishops actually has a say if the Pope wants to do something contrary to what they all believe in. Telling others what to do is communication. Asking others what they think without necessarily doing what they say is collaboration. This doesn’t change the fact that the Pope can act unilaterally and is unopposable as per Pastor Aeternus.
Interesting…so if one applies this problematic standard, then such dogmas as Homoousios, Theotokos, Hypostatic Union, etc., should immediately be rescinded since the first generation(s) of the Church evidently did not know about them?SanctusPeccator;10103955:
Because that is what Apostolic Tradition means. If the extent of our faith is something the Apostles and the Church Fathers do not know about, why do we know better than them? And if we can evolve every item in the deposit of faith into whatever and justify it by saying “we are better learned today,” then what difference are to any Protestant group today who claims that their interpretation is better than our interpretation? Just because of the title “Pope”? If we don’t have a continuity of faith from the Apostles, when we have no connection to their faith. St. Paul himself teaches to hold fast to the traditions THEY handed down to us. In short, we don’t get to make stuff up.Why would one expect the historical development and practical application of papal infallibility to be revealed explicitly and instantaneously?
Agreed, but where was my personal understanding ever emphatically claimed to be that of the Catholic Church (or Orthodoxy for that matter)?SanctusPeccator;10103995:
The most interesting question I’ve seen in this thread by far. Unfortunately, it cuts in all directions.What ensures your understanding of “universal ordinary jurisdiction” is actually that of the Catholic Church?